STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. Vs. MUMMANENI VENKATARAMUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under clause 15 of Letters Patent, is filed by the State Government aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.30383 of 2016 dated 01.06.2017. The respondents filed the Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to declare the notification issued by the Joint Collector-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Anantapuram, under Section 11 and 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter called 2013 Act) published in Eenadu Daily dated 12.04.2016, and in Sakshi Daily dated 22.07.2016, in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The respondents-writ petitioners are owners of land, admeasuring different extents, in Kammavaripally village, Puttaparthy Mandal, Ananthapuram District. A notification, under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act, was published in Eenadu Daily dated 12.04.2016 wherein the names of the father and uncles of the respondents-writ petitioners, who were no more, are alleged to have been shown as the owners of the property. The subject land was sought to be acquired for the Handri Niva Sujala Sravanthi Project and the HNSS main canal. In the notification under Section 11(1) , it is also stated that, in view of G.O.Ms. No.16 dated 29.01.2015, the provisions of Chapters II and III of the 2013 Act were inapplicable. The persons interested in the said land were directed to submit their objections within fifteen days from the date of the notification and, as the names of the petitioners were not mentioned, they did not submit any objections to the notification. Thereafter the third respondent issued a declaration under Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act which came to be published in Sakshi Daily dated 22.07.2016. Challenging the said notifications, issued under Section 11(1) and 19(1) of the 2013 Act, the respondents-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In the counter-affidavit, filed by them in the Writ Petition, the appellants herein had contended that, according to Section 6(2) of the 2013 Act and the Central Government Order No.J/12011/ 37/2011-SA-1 dated 20.12.2006, the provisions of Chapter-Il, and the social impact assessment study, are exempt for lands acquired for irrigation projects.

(3.) Before the Learned Single Judge, the respondent-writ petitioners contended that the Ordinance brought about certain changes to Chapters II and III of the 2013 Act, in respect of acquisition of land relating to five categories i.e., Defence, Rural Infrastructure, Affordable Housing for poor people, Industrial corridors and infrastructure projects including projects under public - private partnership, where the ownership of the land continued to vest with the Government as set out in Section 19(A)(1)(a) to (e) of the Ordinance; pursuant thereto, the 2015 amendment bill was introduced in the House of People, and the same was passed in the Lok Sabha on 10.03.2015; the bill could not be passed in the Rajya Sabha, and hence the Ordinance had lapsed; the President had again promulgated Ordinance 4 of 2015 on 03.04.2015 bringing about certain amendments to the Act; this Ordinance also ceased to operate and lapsed as it could not be passed in both Houses of Parliament; Ordinance 5 of 2015 came to be promulgated on 30.05.2015, but could not be passed in both Houses of Parliament and, as such, it lapsed by virtue of Article 123 of the Constitution of India; the rules, framed under G.O.Ms. No.16 dated 29.01.2015, also lapsed by virtue of the lapse of the Ordinance; in the absence of any social impact assessment study, as required under Sections 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 of the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings, based on such a notification, is illegal, improper and incorrect.